Martin v. Fort Wayne Police Department et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING without prejudice 45 Request for Status Hearing or Emergency Joint Conference (deemed by Court to be motion to preserve evdience or a motion to compel). Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 4/16/2012. (kjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ANTHONY C. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORT WAYNE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-351

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court in this action advancing various civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 is pro se Plaintiff’s “Request for a ‘Status Hearing’ and, or, an Emergency Joint
Conference,” which appears to be a motion to preserve evidence or a motion to compel. (Docket
# 45.) In the motion, Plaintiff conclusorily asserts that Defendants have been noncompliant in
producing discovery and “are in possession of vital/crucial evidence which they are withholding”
and that if the Court does not “interfere or confiscate the evidence . . . it will vanish.”
“Preservation orders are burdensome and expensive and in the absence of a clear need
should not be lightly entered.” Valdez v. Town of Brookhaven, No. CV 05-4323(JS)(ARL), 2007
WL 1988792, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 5, 2007) (citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff has not produced
any evidence that suggests Defendants have not complied or do not intend to comply with their
duty to preserve evidence, and therefore the entry of a preservation order is not warranted. See,
e.g., id. (denying plaintiff’s request that the court direct defense counsel to send out a litigation
hold notice to defendant’s employees where plaintiff’s basis for the request was simply a
comment by defense counsel that defendant had “a history of terrible record keeping”); see

generally Capricorn Power Co. v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 220 F.R.D. 429, 433
(W.D. Pa. 2004) (“[W]here the need expressed by the moving party for a preservation order is
based upon an indefinite or unspecified possibility of the loss or destruction of evidence, rather
than a specific significant, imminent threat of loss, a preservation order usually will not be
justified.”).
And, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion requests that the Court compel Defendants to
produce discovery responses, Plaintiff never identifies with any particularity what information he
seeks. Consequently, the Court is unable to definitively discern which of Defendants’ discovery
responses Plaintiff thinks are inadequate. See, e.g., Morris v. Ley, No. 05 C-0458, 2006 WL
2585029, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 7, 2006) (denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel because it
was “nearly impossible to ascertain which documents the plaintiff seeks to have produced”).
Consequently, Plaintiff’s “Request for a ‘Status Hearing’ and, or, an Emergency Joint
Conference” (Docket # 45), which the Court deems to be a motion to preserve evidence or a
motion to compel, is DENIED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Enter for this 16th day of April, 2012.
/S/ Roger B. Cosbey
Roger B. Cosbey,
United States Magistrate Judge

2